Posts made by Basileus

@finland said in Payment Model info and post release strategy:

@basileus you are missing the fact that cash shop item are just like skins fro mobas. Can not be stolen or destryed. Said so if you lose your guild settlement you can start a new one an put your cosmetic things again. Anyway remeber that a guild settlement can not be destryed but just the defences.

I'm fully in support of cosmetics, and they are a decent source of income if you have a stable game that has reached cash cow status. The thing is that they all take time to make, especially high quality ones. The fact is that the devs will need to churn out content extremely frequently in order to maintain and grow the player base in order to make this game a cash cow, and if they have to produce cosmetics, fix bugs, market the game, take in player feedback and create events at the same time, it's a very tough job for such a small team (currently at eight I believe, and planning to hire four more after the kickstarter).

For your second point, if a guild settlement cannot be destroyed or conquered, then there would be little point to attacking it in the first place. This is unless of course you can loot everyone inside plus any stored materials, in which case the whales paying for the top tier stuff still won't change anything. You can try to be a whale in a game like EVE, but you will be overrun by the highly coordinated guilds with tons of players and just be blown up (a single titan used to cost the equivalent of $1000 IRL cash, and the top guilds of F2Pers had hundreds of them, and this was in 2013. They probably have thousands by now. Plus one person needs to train their skills for ages (probably about a year at least?) before you could even fly it, let alone be skilled in all the mechanics required to use it properly. This didn't stop whales from spending a ton on the game and supporting the devs, but it was never P2W as their 'super' ships often just got mobbed by about 100 players in super cheap ships (equivalent to IRL $0.005 USD ships that every player can get on their first day) , killed, and looted.

@target About the first point, the Devs have specifically said that gear does not matter in combat (only player skill) and that someone is competitive from day one with no gear at all; this is stated in multiple places (can easily look it up on the main page). And as for buying materials to build stronger settlements, that is generally a case where it's doomed to fail; anyone who needs to buy materials with cash obviously doesn't have enough members to grind for it. So if suddenly a 500 man guild decides to kill your 5 man guild with the one whale... they could sack your town, destroy all your work and leave you with nothing (unless settlements are permanent safe zones for Beastmen, or even if they are invincible in general, in which case then it becomes mere cosmetics and I have no problem if someone decides to spend $10,000 on virtual real estate to look cool). Look to EVE Online, the strongest players in the game aren't the ones who pay the most (despite IRL money being directly linked to ISK and in game wealth through PLEX). In fact, the strongest players/corps in EVE just play it 100% for free, using the income from the moons they control to just buy anything they need.

As for the second point, Warframe does indeed have non premium currencies. There's credits, all the basic crafting materials, rare mods, blueprints etc (all of these apart from credits and materials can and are often traded for each other directly without the use of the premium currency). Again, look to EVE online here, you can pay directly for the in game value of PLEX (whatever it is these days, when I played in 2013 it was 500 million ISK per Plex, so $25 USD = 500 mill ISK. In 2018, the median for one PLEX is 3.2 billion ISK, a very small rate of inflation for an MMO. Compare this to something like ESO gold, which has inflated sky high. I remember paying 1k gold for a top tier piece of gear on ESO's launch in 2014. Houses now cost millions of gold), and yet EVE was 100% not pay to win. Instead, it was the F2P grinders/smart traders/clever scammers/guilds with massive resource income who benefited, as they could buy Plex from the in game market and not pay a dime. Again, this is due to the fact that everything in EVE can and will be destroyed at some point, much like how Fractured plans to be (full loot, destructible gear, consumables like food being key to travel etc). Paying for something that will be consumed leads to a healthy economy. Paying for things that will never disappear leads to inflation, basic Econ 101.

As for the third point, it is simple. A player can pay for a VIP sub ticket for say, $20 USD. They can then either activate this ticket, or put it on the market for $X In game currency. A F2P player can buy this VIP sub ticket with the $X in game currency, thus not paying a dime. The Devs still get their money because someone had to buy the sub ticket in the first place. By doing this, you are tying a theoretically worthless currency (the in game one) with a currency that has actual value in the real world (USD in this example), thus ensuring the in game currency always has some value. This is the same as the Plex system in EVE, and is also used in multiple real life scenarios, although IRL we tie things far more directly by fixing the exchange rate, rather than letting it vary (such as the Bulgarian Leva being pegged to the Deutsche Mark (before the Euro was made) in value, or the Hong Kong Dollar being pegged to USD).

@kralith I think you have forgotten that we're supposed to get a game where gear doesn't matter. If that is the case, then the ability to buy anything in game with the premium currency wouldn't actually impact the game in a P2W way. Rather it becomes an excellent way for people to just trade premium currency for time (i.e buying all your travelling food, tents, and correct clothes for the environment instead of grinding for them; if you meet them in PvP, they are still just as easy to kill compared to a regular player).

If you would like a more stringent system, what about a system where you can only use Premium Currency to buy blueprints of items? That way you would still have to craft the item in order to attain it (and then imagine if crafting something took time). That way grinders would have a great way to get premium currency for free (farm rare blueprints, say building blueprints for instance). If someone wants to pay $100 USD to get a rare palace blueprint for example, I have no issue with it, since it doesn't translate into in game strength, and is essentially just paying money to look cool. Or perhaps the VIP sub per month could be sold for the in game currency too, thus ensuring that the in game currency doesn't inflate like crazy a year in (much like how EVE Online does it, as mentioned by @KairosVal).

As for the PoE strategy, it is great if you have time to ramp up, but they developed that game for six years (for most of that period, they received no income). If Fractured can get to the point where they can develop the game for six years with no income, I think nobody would be really worried about it. As it is however, the devs will likely need to launch early before many planned game features are complete. In order for it to succeed, they will have to make do with less content, less developer time to spend on cosmetics and etc and STILL manage to retain and grow a player-base and push out updates at a fast rate at the same time while growing their profit margins. Tying the premium currency to in game items could really help boost their income and thus give us all a better game (or just an alive game) in the long runs. If you look at examples, games that started off with a 'decent' consumer friendly model, only to turn P2W, like Albion Online, only do so because they realize that they will never get a return on their investment, and therefore decide to milk the whales in their game before it dies in order to try to recoup costs.

@target said in Payment Model info and post release strategy:

@basileus said in Payment Model info and post release strategy:

Warframe is particularly significant to Fractured I feel, as it runs on procedural generation as well, unlike EVE

Except for asteroids, Fractured doesn't run on procedural generation the same way Warframe does. They use procedural generation to generate the world instead of crafting the landscape and placing everything by hand. It's procedurally generated the same way Elder Scrolls Oblivion is.

There are elements of its business model that can be borrowed (like Prime Access), but Warframe's business model is so incredibly specific to Warframe that I can't see it translating well into any other game. A huge part of why it works is because Warframe is mostly non-competitive. If you introduce the same economic system into any game with PvP or other forms of competition, it turns into a pay to win mess.

I'm against any payment model that includes the ability to open your wallet for in game wealth. Fractured already has a box price, a cash shop, and a vip subscription. If it needs to further supplement its business model, a non-p2w option is a cosmetic version of Warframe's prime access or Path of Exile's supporter packs.

Actually, the devs have said that the in game world for Fractured is procedurally generated as well. It was in one of their videos (the very first gameplay footage one I believe). There is simply no way that a 8 man team can create a handcrafted world at all, and if they were trying to do this, the game would die very soon post-launch (no ability to update). As for players opening their wallets for in game wealth, that is generally not a problem, as people still have to generate in game wealth in the first place. The VIP sub is unlikely to be a great source of income without the ability to buy it with in game resources (and therefore the whales will have plenty of premium currency to spend on in game items, while F2P players will be able to access the premium content). We should all be concerned with making this game as profitable and as friendly to F2P players as possible. Furthermore, it's highly likely that the box price for fractured will have to be dropped post launch. Even AAA level games like SWTOR and EVE Online went F2P (and made a profit after that); a high barrier of entry to an indie game is generally not a super good idea. Things like founder packs are a great way to establish a seed fund, but it is a one off cash injection, not a constant revenue stream that can continue to support game development years into the future.

@jetah In EvE, some of the most powerful guilds in the game simply had way more F2P grinders, like Goonswarm back in the day (even back before the game went F2P, I easily played it for free as it only cost 500 million ISK per month of sub, and I could easily get billions a month). An individual can never outspend thousands of F2P grinders coordinated in an effective fashion with actual logistics and a chain of command. Besides, Fractured itself claims that most progression is sideways; as such paying for in game resources (especially the buying from players part, which means that someone must play the game for these resources to be generated) cannot be P2W as long as this holds true, as anything you buy will be sideways progression at most (aside from knowledge points, which I believe requires the game itself to be played, and that is the only real upward progression that the devs have indicated). Our progress will be measured in knowledge and reputation, and so long as the devs ensure that this cannot be bought and one must play the game to attain it, it will not fall into the P2W territory.

Bottom line is, I really want the game to succeed, but it will not do so if it doesn't have a viable business model. Relying on subs and an 8 man team to generate cosmetics (who also have to constantly churn out updates and new content; many games end up in a state where the devs focus solely on cosmetics in a desperate attempt to recoup costs until the game implodes from a lack of updates) in a niche, indie, B2P (a.k.a high barrier to entry) game is not going to be possible.

The only way the game (and any modern "games as a service" style of game) will survive long term is if the devs can create a constant revenue stream, hire more people (generally I think most games on this scale runs with at least 30 people) in order to constantly churn out even more content, use said content to attract more players etc until the game gets to the point where the revenue stream outstrips the costs of all hires (any needed new ones and old), rental cost, marketing etc. The game needs to be self sustaining, and it's highly likely that the first year will be complete cash burn (much like any business, and this is ignoring the initial development cost which is 100% cash burn with no revenue aside from cash injections from kickstarter and investors). The earlier we can sort this out, the easier it will become to create a consumer friendly F2P model that also generates a strong revenue stream. As for Warframe being a PvE grinding game, well the fact is that most MMOs are also PvE grinding games, so it is a great comparison point; we just aim to have better PvP too. Even games famous for their PvP content usually has a ton of PvEers doing all the boring grind work that powers the rest of the economy. Imagine PvEers as serfs, and PvPers as lords who spend the serfs' hard work waging endless war amongst themselves; for this type of game to be successful, both playstyles need to be innately fun and rewarding (much like EVE Online in this case). This means constant updates, constant changes. And to do that, we need the game to be very profitable while still being consumer friendly; if games like Warframe has offered us a look at what a successful model looks like, then we should imitate it. Like Machiavelli states, if you're not a true genius, just imitate them and we'll at least get a shadow of their success.

Hey there, I was just curious as to how the game intends to sustain itself in the long term. I recently checked out Warframe (a procedurally generated 3rd person PvE shooter similar to Mass Effect 3's multiplayer system with way more content) and was pleasantly surprised by how consumer friendly their F2P system was. For those who don't know, in short in Warframe, every single last item in the game, including cosmetics, can be gained through grinding alone, without paying a single cent. The game has a system where a player can trade valuable items in game, such as rare blueprints, for 'platinum' (a bought currency). This means that even F2P players can grind up items, sell them for plat, and use the plat to buy other rare items or cosmetics. All the gear in the game is also craftable rather than looted directly, meaning that every session will feel meaningful, even if you loot a top tier rare blueprint that you weren't after (as you can simply sell it for plat, then buy the one you want). Of course the game also has a great core combat experience on top of that, so grinding the game itself is actually fun!

This is also quite similar to how EVE Online works, with Plex (representative of a one month subscription with a IRL dollar value), buyable with the in game currency, ISK. Following the huge success of these two games, (Warframe is particularly significant to Fractured I feel, as it runs on procedural generation as well, unlike EVE). I think we can safely say that successful F2P games allow their players to feel like they have progressed with each session in a meaningful way, where nothing is payment locked, and most importantly, there are constant updates to provide fresh content to players at a similar rate of consumption. In this case, I feel that Fractured has the best of both worlds in terms of content generation, we have EVE's sandbox concept where the players' interactions will be the content, plus we have procedural generation to constantly churn out fresh scenarios (PvE wise) at a low cost (particularly important to beastmen, but is important to all factions regardless).

I was wondering if the devs are drawing any inspiration from these two models, and if so, can they create meaningful progression that can satisfy both grinders and payers? Along the same point, are they going to treat the F2P model in the future as a viable possibility? (F2P drastically lowers the barrier to entry, and the Warframe model means that the grinders provide a living economy (not all items can be grinded all the time, some items are limited time only before they go into a 'vault' where it may take years to be able to be grinded again, creating rarity which boosts the economy). Building everything will also require a huge amount of manpower, even if Fractured is a lot less graphically intensive (which hopefully reduces the workload, although netcode, FPS issues, and desync are usually extremely challenging problems in all MMOs compared to an instanced 4 man 'level' like Warframe).

EDIT: I'm using Warframe as an example because it has recently claimed Dota 2's top spot in Steam Charts, plus it was a game where all the publishers said it would fail pre-launch (with lots of very good and valid points, such as how ambitious projects with lots of moving parts tend to be slow on updates etc), the devs essentially all-ined on an untested concept, and now has 50 million players, plus runs on procedural gen.

I believe there was a story about someone stealing a god tier item from someone else in Ultima Online, which was a huge thrill to read. Even so, stealing as a mechanic would take ages to be done correctly for very little benefit (a.k.a feature creep), and I wouldn't want the devs to go down that road.

Extra races and other things like that is just nice fluff to have. Let the devs focus on the really important stuff first, like netcode with good synchronization and FPS optimization. After that, they need to implement core gameplay mechanics and make sure they work, like PvP mechanics, the knowledge system, are skills fun to use & balanced, does player collision work etc. Once all of the above is also fine, they can focus on polishing graphics and adding new races to attract new players. But if the game has a bad foundation, (i.e bad netcode), it really doesn't matter what the rest is like.

And if the devs do have extra time and aren't delayed in any way (which would really be a miracle), then I personally would like more Demon sub-classes. Particularly a dedicated anti zerg class that gets more powerful the more enemies are clustered on one spot (although it could be very possible that the blood vampire is already this class, we don't know yet!).

I really hope they focus on programming all the really basic core stuff from the get go, rather than flashy features. Netcode, engine stability, good frames when there's a lot of people on screen etc. After that, they can sort out game mechanics and stuff! Things like graphics, extra non core game features and etc should come last.

I think the best method would be the DAoC method, where a tank can guard a player with a skill (permanently, as long as you are positioned near them and you haven't switched the skill to someone else), and will take in a portion of the damage that goes towards that player (say, 50%). This skill should have a long cooldown and you must not be able to switch to other people too quickly, at least not without something like a channel that can be interrupted. I believe SWToR had a skill like that too, and the top PvP teams would call out who to switch guard to and etc. The other method that SWToR used however was pretty brain dead, you just spammed group taunt the moment it was up to give everyone in range a damage debuff. I would prefer a skill based system where tanks don't become the meta, as invincible people who can't be killed only buffs up zergs and nerfs small scale PvP (because the only method to really kill people in a tank meta is to bring more people).

Overall, if it really comes down to it, it heavily depends on the healing meta too. If healing is difficult and skillful (healing should not outpace DPS, someone spamming heal on themselves should lose to someone who is attacking them correctly (if you must heal up in a fight, in a skillful game you need to find some way to stop the enemy from hitting you effectively first). If this is the case, tanks can be a good addition to PvP. If healing is OP and you can just spam an aoe heal circle, then tanks need to be weak, else the meta will be zergs only, and small scale PvP will die (as you cannot 1 vs 3 in a meta where people take forever to kill).

I wouldn't mind if the system had no instant heals at all, just natural regen plus potions with cooldowns. This would give tanks a lot of room to be balanced in PvP, and therefore be more vital and a lot stronger.

Sure, that sounds great once the game comes out! It'll probably be Q4 2020 at the earliest I imagine, since pre-alpha is the end of this year, assuming everything stays on schedule. Considering that they started in 2017 with 5 people (at least I believe it was 5), that in itself would be an incredible feat.

I just have to say I love the art style so far. But mostly I'm really looking forward to what demon buildings/enviroments look like!

@EvolGrinZ Think of it as consumers with PTSD. They will assume the worst given recent industry history, and will likely be pessimistic until proven otherwise. I think the best move for the devs would be to take the road of Camelot Unchained, dedicate themselves to having absolutely no P2W features anywhere in game, and restrict themselves from using feature creep as a method to get more funding money; we will see how the project pans out in the long term.

I personally have high hopes for it, but I also understand that any money put into a kickstarter project may be going into a black hole, never to be seen again. If there is any feature creep in the process of making the game, we as consumers must call out the devs and ensure that we will hold them to their promises (much like shareholders would, except we have far less power as there's too many of us with too small a stake). At the same time, any move that shows dedication towards making their core vision a success, such as fiscal responsibility (seeking outside investment rather than asking backers for even more money via 'special limited time packs' when delays and unexpected setbacks happen, and I bet you they probably will barring a miracle), restricting themselves when needed by cutting unneeded features designed to please the crowd etc should be congratulated. I've designed very simple game projects under time constraints before, and one of the universal constants is that many great ideas will need to be cut in order to put out a viable product. And those were simple 2D based action mobile games; more complex games will necessarily encounter even more obstacles, and it is best that the devs (and us) approach this with cold hard realism rather than starry eyed optimism.

EDIT: I would also like to applaud the devs for already securing some external funding plus having an actual pre-alpha product in engine before the kickstarter begins; such discipline really makes me have a lot of hope in this project, and I wish you all the best!

@Severinus I personally do not care about being looted, I enjoy games for the PvP experience! However, I know that a lot of people hate losing (and at the same time don't really care for learning from it unless they feel like they didn't lose anything), and I want to make it so that they don't mind it much either, so it encourages more people to go out into the open world without staying in massive zerg groups. If looting hurts too much, open world PvP generally becomes zerg vs zerg, where both zergs avoid each other in order to try to find small groups to overrun with 0 skill and loot. Personally I usually prefer small group PvP and 1 vs X playstyles (except for when I'm running with a large guild with strategic objectives, but I consider the two entirely different playstyles, and I like to indulge in both).

Bottom line is, I want both Syndesia and Tartaros to be target rich environments, and if dying hurts too much, then I won't have many targets to kill, which means less fun for me. Therefore, I want what's best for the game by making death hurt less (EVE uses insurance, tutorials that teaches newbs to not fly what they can't afford to lose etc), so that I can have more fun myself! (I consider that a pretty demony way of looking at things right?)

@staticsprite Hey, I know that much has been explained to us, but nobody really knows how much loot will be dropped on average (i.e for each death, how many hours of gameplay do you lose, and how much do you retain etc). So for example, if it was full loot, and all your loot together took you 1 hour to get together, then you've effectively lost (in terms of enjoyment):

Player frustration = (1 hour worth of items + travel time) - (your gameplay experience for the session + any in game knowledge points you've acquired).

In an ideal world, that equation above would be negative, so you would enjoy your gameplay session even if you do die and get looted (much like how it works in EVE Online so long as you follow the mantra of "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose".)

Of course this would change a lot depending on how hard or easy gear is to acquire, particularly top tier gear (and if top tier gear is only 1% better than say mid tier gear that costs you 10 minutes to make, this would also have significant impact on the 'value' of death). Naturally I expect more influential players who own farms, mines/has more money and knows how to play the market will have faster recovery rates than a poor player with nothing, thus ensuring that there will always be players who don't mind losing the best gear in game (and thus also encouraging low geared players to go out and fight in hopes of looting a top tier geared player).

I was wondering how the all important mechanic, death in game, will be handled. I know that there is loot in this game, but the devs have also constantly said that all gear are sidegrades, which gives me hope. In games with looting and very expensive, long grindy hamster wheels for gear, people tend to cower behind walls and not do anything because they are afraid of losing their 'hard work'. If on the other hand, anything you lose will be relatively easy to replace (perhaps via means of production that cannot be looted, i.e farms, auto quarries mines etc that can be built or conquered, that way we still have great goals for players to achieve in game), then people are far more likely to partake in fun activities like open world PvP.

Bottom line is, is death easy to recover from? I hope it will be, because this will probably be crucial to the health of the game in the long run. Many current hot topics like log-off timers, how 'fair' PvP will be, and other such important game mechanics all hinge on how death is handled! Players should be incentivised to fight for things on the map and partake in activities like eclipses, but if death is hard to recover from, these exciting concepts will likely end up being quite empty.

Of course death will still have some consequence. Imagine if you are travelling from A to B in order to learn something in B, but you die just before reaching it. Now you have to restart your journey, pack more food and etc. The experience should make you excited to try again though, and to add adrenaline to the trip! Of course, if you a merchant with goods, then dying will have greater consequences, but again the rewards will also be great if you do make it (again adding excitement to the game, along with player professions like security, plus player metagaming mechanics like "how much can you pay me so I betray my employer and etc". After all, all great sandboxes are based on player interaction!)

@jetah A lot of the great MMOs and sandbox games (ESO circa 2014 - 2017, EVE Online, etc) will allow a highly skilled player to 1 vs X, usually because the X doesn't bother with coordination, training, using skills at the right time (they usually are used to overwhelming with numbers and spamming one thing). If the game has a high skill ceiling and a low skill floor, I would not be surprised if the best player in the game could kill twenty bad players and live to tell the tale (as it was in the 2015 days of ESO).

You can look it up on youtube, most ESO videos dating from 2015 was all about 1 vs X.

EDIT: As for demons needing numbers, I beg to differ. Demons will have way more PvP experience on hand, so much so that it would probably be entirely possible for an average Demon player to be able to easily 1 vs 2 some average human players (especially since the devs have mentioned many times that gear is only situational and the whole MMO trope of "I have better gear, I win" does not exist in Fractured). In fact, this is part of the core vision and one of the reasons I'm looking forward to the game so much; I would love to have a game that isn't focused on grinding pointless gear pixels, and more focused on player skill, coordination and general strategy (of course you still need things like warm clothes to travel around in cold regions and such, it seems like a great way to make gear relevant but balanced at the same time!).

As for stunlocks being a problem, they could simply design very few actual crowd control abilities, along with a natural CC breaker (like ESO has) that everyone can use, which also makes one immune to CC for a few seconds afterwards. This will up the skill ceiling (i.e when to use a stun break at the exact right time, managing timers and etc) and allow very good players to defeat enemy players in a 1 vs x scenario (i.e enemy players who do not know what to break, when to break, when to stun, or how to burst correctly if the opponent is stunned). I believe the devs have also mentioned that there will be things like dodges in game which you can use to evade skill shots, adding in even more skill ceiling to the game!

If you played EVE Online, it will be like EVE Nullsec most likely. Just don't take out anything that you can't afford to lose, and it should be all good. Learn how the game works so you can outplay your enemies, and view everything you own in game as a consumable. PvP does not need to be fair, it can be brutal and fun, and the best players will learn how to kill multiple people on their own.

EDIT: If you're the type who prefers 'fair' pvp without the possibility of your enemies using baits, unfair advantages, double teaming, zerging etc, then being a human is probably more your thing. There exists a sizable playerbase (basically all the backers of Camelot Unchained) out there that doesn't care much about fair, and just want to play with low numbers (even solo) of high skilled players and try to outplay large groups of less skilled zergs. Of course, the fairest PvP you'll find will be in games like LoL, Overwatch and etc, which are designed to be tactical games, but not strategic ones.

@jetah EVE has gone through many phases, and I believe there used to be a 30 minute timer that did not reset on being attack; this was abused and I believe there was a tactic to keep healing your titans (ships worth 1k dollars in RL money if you converted ISK into PLEX cost) that were 100% going to die, and they would alt-f4 the moment the fight was lost. Their guildies would keep healing their afk ship, then 30 minutes later it would poof and disappear before it could be killed. This is probably why they changed it so that the timer reset the second you were attacked.

@Finland I would be okay with a 1 minute 30 second timer for logging out that can be interrupted upon any damage (human or NPC) if you were fully visible for the entirety of that timer. No stealth should be allowed while you are logging out to prevent people from using it to escape from a dangerous situation. Same with any potential teleport to towns etc (though I do believe such a mechanic would somewhat ruin the travelling and merchant core game the devs are trying to create; in EVE online there is no such thing as an auto teleport to a safe dock!). There will still be edge cases maybe where people will use the logoff to escape via hiding behind terrain or something, but maybe this can be overcome with good planning.

@rotul The idea is that you are not going to be killing any AFKs, it is to prevent people from escaping a scenario where they will almost certainly die by using ALT-F4. If you play games like DayZ, or maybe Elite Dangerous, you will know that combat logging in those games are serious issues (in Elite Dangerous, players even ALT-F4 in PvE!) that players use to exploit the game and not die. Bottom line, if you log out somewhere unsafe, then dying is 100% your fault (if you do die, the vast majority of times you probably won't if the game is large enough, and it looks pretty large to me from the demos shown). If you log off somewhere safe (i.e inside your own house, in an inn, whatever the safe zones are), then you have instant log out. It encourages people to plan out their trips and end it in safe spaces, or else risk dying by logging out in the middle of nowhere (think of it as the same as setting up camp in the middle of nowhere, monsters might kill you while you sleep, etc).

@grofire Also why would people not go out then? You just plan to end your journey somewhere safe. If not, log out in the middle and come back, you might be dead, you might not, but who cares? In this game we're looking for knowledge and to experience the gameplay; gear is all supposed to be situational (and I'm betting easily replaceable). We'll probably be posting general guides for newbies in the future with the EVE mantra of "Don't take out what you cannot afford to lose." There are thousands of hand holding games out there, let this have our core niche audience who don't care if we lose gear or not. Better that than the combat logging plague that has infected every single game where the log off timers aren't long enough.

I would be fine with this one compromise. If you have not attacked a player or NPC in the last 30 minutes or have not taken damage from any of the above, you may have a log off timer of one minute. If you have attacked an NPC or have been attacked by an NPC, your log off timer is 5 minutes (will be reset if you are attacked by an NPC during this timer, or if you attack an NPC). If you have attacked a player within the last 30 minutes or have been attacked by a player within the same timeframe, your logoff timer will then be 15 minutes, and will be reset if you are damaged by any source or if you do any damage to a player again. This will prevent stealth, kill, loot, stealth, log off antics that are so common in other games where the timers are short. (Will also prevent people from escaping death by logging off).